Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

What Is To Be Done?

BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT

I

Dogmatism And “Freedom of Criticism”

A. What Does “Freedom of Criticism” Mean?

“Freedom of criticism” is undoubtedly the most fashionable
slogan at the present time, and the one most frequently employed
in the controversies between socialists and democrats in all
countries. At first sight, nothing would appear to be more
strange than the solemn appeals to freedom of criticism made by
one of the parties to the dispute. Have voices been raised in
the advanced parties against the constitutional law of the
majority of European countries which guarantees freedom to
science and scientific investigation? “Something must be wrong
here,” will be the comment of the onlooker who has heard this
fashionable slogan repeated at every turn but has not yet
penetrated the essence of the disagreement among the disputants;
evidently this slogan is one of the conventional phrases which,
like nicknames, become legitimised by use, and become almost
generic terms.”

In fact, it is no secret for anyone that two trends have taken
form in present-day international[1][1]
Incidentally, in the history of modern socialism this is a
phenomenon, perhaps unique and in its way very consoling,
namely, that the strife of the various trends within the
socialist movement has from national become
international. Formerly, the disputes between Lassalleans and
Eisenachers,[24] between Guesdists and
Possibilists,[25] between Fabians
and Social-Democrats, and between Narodnaya Volya adherents and
Social-Democrats, remained confined within purely national
frameworks, reflecting purely national features, and proceeding,
as it were, on different planes. At the present time (as is now
evident), the English Fabians, the French Ministerialists, the
German Bernsteinians, and the Russian Critics – all belong to
the same family, all extol each other, learn from each other,
and together take up arms against “dogmatic” Marxism. In this
first really international battle with socialist opportunism,
international revolutionary Social-Democracy will perhaps become
sufficiently strengthened to put an end to the political
reaction that has long reigned in Europe?
—Lenin
Social-Democracy.
The conflict
between these trends now flares up in a bright flame and now
dies down and smoulders under the ashes of imposing “truce
resolutions”. The essence of the “new” trend, which adopts a
“critical” attitude towards “obsolete dogmatic” Marxism, has
been clearly enough presented by Bernstein and
demonstrated by Millerand.

Social-Democracy must change from a party of social revolution
into a democratic party of social reforms. Bernstein has
surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of
well-attuned “new” arguments and reasonings. Denied was the
possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of
demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the point of
view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the
fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarisation,
and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very
concept, “ultimate aim”, was declared to be unsound,
and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was
completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle
between liberalism and socialism. Denied was the theory of
the class struggle, on the alleged grounds that it could
not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed
according to the will of the majority, etc.

Thus, the demand for a decisive turn from revolutionary
Social-Democracy to bourgeois social-reformism was accompanied
by a no less decisive turn towards bourgeois criticism of all
the fundamental ideas of Marxism. In view of the fact that this
criticism of Marxism has long been directed from the political
platform, from university chairs, in numerous pamphlets and in a
series of learned treatises, in view of the fact that the entire
younger generation of the educated classes has been
systematically reared for decades on this criticism, it is not
surprising that the “new critical” trend in Social-Democracy
should spring up, all
complete, like Minerva from the head of
Jove. The content of this new trend did not have to grow and
take shape, it was transferred bodily from bourgeois to
socialist literature.

To proceed. If Bernstein’s theoretical criticism and political
yearnings were still unclear to anyone, the French took the
trouble strikingly to demonstrate the “new method”. In this
instance, too, France has justified its old reputation of being
“the land where, more than anywhere else, the historical class
struggles were each time fought out to a decision...” (Engels,
Introduction to Marx’s Der 18
Brumaire).[12] The French
socialists have begun, not to theorise, but to act. The
democratically more highly developed political conditions in
France have permitted them to put “Bernsteinism into practice”
immediately, with all its consequences. Millerand has furnished
an excellent example of practical Bernsteinism; not without
reason did Bernstein and Vollmar rush so zealously to defend and
laud him. Indeed, if Social-Democracy, in essence, is merely a
party of reform and must be bold enough to admit this openly,
then not only has a socialist the right to join a bourgeois
cabinet, but he must always strive to do so. If democracy, in
essence, means the abolition of class domination, then why
should not a socialist minister charm the whole bourgeois world
by orations on class collaboration? Why should he not remain in
the cabinet even after the shooting-down of workers by gendarmes
has exposed, for the hundredth and thousandth time, the real
nature of the democratic collaboration of classes? Why should he
not personally take part in greeting the tsar, for whom the
French socialists now have no other name than hero of the
gallows, knout, and exile (knouteur, pendeur et
deportateur)? And the reward for this utter humiliation and
self-degradation of socialism in the face of the whole world,
for the corruption of the socialist consciousness of the working
masses – the only basis that can guarantee our victory – the
reward for this is pompous projects for miserable
reforms, so miserable in fact that much more has been obtained
from bourgeois governments!

He who does not deliberately close his eyes cannot fail to see
that the new “critical” trend in socialism is nothing more nor
less than a new variety of opportunism. And if we judge
people, not by the glittering uniforms they don or
by the highsounding appellations they give themselves, but by their
actions and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear
that “freedom of criticism” means’ freedom for an opportunist
trend in Social-Democracy, freedom to convert Social-Democracy
into a democratic party of reform, freedom to introduce
bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism.

“Freedom” is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for
industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of
freedom of labour, the working people were robbed. The modern
use of the term “freedom of criticism” contains the same
inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they
have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the
new views to continue side by side with the old, but the
substitution of the new views for the old. The cry heard today,
“Long live freedom of criticism”, is too strongly reminiscent of
the fable of the empty barrel.

We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and
difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are
surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance
almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a
freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy,
and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the
inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us
with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with
having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of
conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go
into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort:
What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the
liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen!
You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves
wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that
the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render
you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands,
don’t clutch at us and don’t besmirch the grand word freedom,
for we too are “free” to go where we please, free to fight not
only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning
towards the marsh!

Now, this slogan (“freedom of criticism”) has in recent times
been solemnly advanced by Rabocheye Dyelo (No. 10),
organ of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, not as a
theoretical postulate, but as a political demand, as a reply to
the question, “Is it possible to unite the Social-Democratic
organisations operating abroad?”: “For a durable unity, there
must be freedom of criticism” (p. 36).

From this statement two definite conclusions follow: (1) that
Rabocheye Dyelo has taken under its wing the
opportunist trend in international Social-Democracy in general,
and (2) that Rabocheye Dyelo demands freedom for
opportunism in Russian Social-Democracy. Let us examine these
conclusions.

Rabocheye Dyelo is “particularly” displeased with the
“inclination of Iskra and Zarya to predict a
rupture between the Mountain and the Gironde
in international Social-Democracy”.[2]

“Generally speaking,” writes B. Krichevsky, editor of
Rabocheye Dyelo, “this talk of the Mountain
and the Gironde heard in the ranks of
Social-Democracy represents a shallow historical analogy, a
strange thing to come from the pen of a Marxist. The Mountain
and the Gironde did not represent different temperaments-, or
intellectual trends, as the historians of social thought may
think, but different classes or strata – the middle
bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and the petty bourgeoisie and the
proletariat, on the other. In the modern socialist movement,
however, there is no conflict of class interests; the socialist
movement in its entirety, in all of its diverse forms
(Krichevsky’s italics), including the most pronounced
Bernsteinians, stands on the basis of the class interests of the
proletariat and its class struggle for political and economic
emancipation” (pp. 32-33).

A bold assertion! Has not Krichevsky heard of the fact, long ago
noted, that it is precisely the extensive participation of an
“academic” stratum in the socialist movement in recent
years that has promoted such a rapid spread of Bernsteinism? And
what is most important – on what does our author found his
opinion that even “the most pronounced Bernsteinians” stand on
the basis of the class struggle for the political and economic
emancipation of the proletariat? No one knows. This determined
defence of the most pronounced Bernsteinians is not supported by
any argument or reasoning whatever. Apparently, the author
believes that if he repeats what the most pronounced
Bernsteinians say about themselves his assertion requires no
proof. But can anything more “shallow” be imagined than this
judgement of an entire trend based on nothing more than what the
representatives of that trend say about themselves? Can anything
more shallow be imagined than the subsequent “homily” on the two
different and even diametrically opposite types, or paths, of
party development? (Rabocheye Dyelo, pp. 34-35.) The
German Social-Democrats, in other words, recognise complete
freedom of criticism, but the French do not, and it is
precisely their example that demonstrates the “bane of
intolerance”.

To this we can only say that the very example B. Krichevsky
affords us attests to the fact that the name Marxists is at
times assumed by people who conceive history literally in the
“Ilovaisky
manner”.[13] To explain the unity
of the German Socialist
Party and the disunity of the French Socialist Party, there is
no need whatever to go into the special features in the history
of these countries, to contrast the conditions of military
semiabsolutism in the one with republican parliamentarism in the
other, to analyse the effects of the Paris Commune and the
effects of the Exceptional Law Against the Socialists, to
compare the economic life and economic development of the two
countries, or to recall that “the unexampled growth of German
Social-Democracy” was accompanied by a strenuous struggle,
unique in the history of socialism, not only against erroneous
theories (Mühlberger,
Dühring,[3]
the Katheder-Socialists[14]),
but also against erroneous
tactics (Lassalle), etc., etc. All that is superfluous! The
French quarrel among themselves because they are intolerant; the
Germans are united because they are good boys.

And observe, this piece of matchless profundity is designed to
“refute” the fact that puts to rout the defence of the
Bernsteinians. The question whether or not the Bernsteinians
stand on the basis of the class struggle of the
proletariat is one that can be completely and irrevocably
answered only by historical experience. Consequently, the
example of France holds greatest significance in this respect,
because France is the only country in which the Bernsteinians
attempted to stand independently, on their own feet,
with the warm approval of their German colleagues (and partly
also of the Russian opportunists; cf. Rabocheye Dyelo,
No. 2-3, pp. 83-84). The reference to the “intolerance” of the
French, apart from its “historical” significance (in the
Nozdryov[15] sense), turns out to
be merely an attempt to –hush up
very unpleasant facts with angry invectives.

Nor are we inclined to make a present of the Germans to
Krichevsky and the numerous other champions of “freedom of
criticism”. If the “most pronounced Bernsteinians” are still
tolerated in the ranks of the German party, it is only to the
extent that they submit to the Hanover
resolution,[16]
which emphatically rejected Bernstein’s “amendments”, and to the
Lubeck resolution, which (notwithstanding the diplomatic terms
in which it is couched) contains a direct warning to
Bernstein. It is debatable, from the
standpoint of the interests
of the German party, whether diplomacy was appropriate and
whether, in this case, a bad peace is better than a good
quarrel; in short, opinions may differ as to the expediency of
any one of the methods employed to reject Bernsteinism,
but that the German party did reject Bernsteinism on
two occasions, is a fact no one can fail to see. Therefore, to
think that the German example confirms the thesis that “the most
pronounced Bernsteinians stand on the basis of the class
struggle of the proletariat, for political and economic
emancipation”, means to fail completely to understand what is
going on under our very eyes.[4]

Nor is that all. As we have seen, Rabocheye Dyelo
demands “freedom of criticism” and defends Bernsteinism before
Russian Social-Democracy. Apparently it convinced
itself that we were unfair to our “Critics” and
Bernsteinians. But to which ones? who? where? when? What did the
unfairness represent? About this, not a word. Rabocheye
Dyelo does not name a single Russian Critic or
Bernsteinian! We are left with but one of two possible
suppositions. Either the unfairly treated party is none
other than Rabocheye Dyelo itself (this is confirmed by
the fact that in the two articles in No. 10 reference is made
only to the wrongs suffered by Rabocheye Dyelo at the
hands of Zarya and Iskra). If that
is the case, how is the strange fact to be explained that Rabocheye
Dyelo, which always vehemently dissociated itself from all
solidarity with Bernsteinism, could not defend itself without
putting in a word in defence of the “most pronounced
Bernsteinians” and of freedom of criticism? Or some third
persons have been treated unfairly. if this is the case, then
what reasons may there be for not naming them?

We see, therefore, that Rabocheye Dyelo is continuing
to play the game of hide-and-seek it has played (as we shall
show below) ever since its founding. And let us note further
this first practical application of the vaunted
“freedom of criticism”. In actual fact, not only was it
forthwith reduced to abstention from all criticism, but also to
abstention from expressing independent views altogether. The
very Rabocheye Dyelo, which avoids mentioning Russian
Bernsteinism as if it were a shameful disease (to use
Starover’s[17]
apt expression), proposes, for the treatment of this disease, to
copy word for word the latest German prescription for the German
variety of the malady! Instead of freedom of criticism slavish
(worse: apish) imitation! The very same social and political
content of modern international opportunism reveals itself in a
variety of ways according to national peculiarities. In one
country the opportunists have long ago come out under a separate
flag; in another, they have ignored theory and in fact pursued
the policy of the Radicals-Socialists; in a third, some members
of the revolutionary party have deserted to the camp of
opportunism and strive to achieve their aims, not in open
struggle for principles and for new tactics, but by gradual,
imperceptible, and, if one may so put it, unpunishable
corruption of their party; in a fourth country, similar
deserters employ the same methods in the gloom of political
slavery, and with a completely original combination of “legal”
and “illegal” activity, etc. To talk of freedom of criticism and
of Bernsteinism as a condition for uniting the Russian
Social Democrats and not to explain how Russian
Bernsteinism has manifested itself and what particular
fruits it has borne, amounts to talking with the aim of saying
nothing.

Let us ourselves try, if only in a few words, to say what
Rabocheye Dyelo did not want to say (or which was,
perhaps, beyond its comprehension).

C. Criticism in Russia

The chief distinguishing feature of Russia in regard to the
point we are examining is that the very beginning of
the spontaneous working-class movement, on the one hand, and of
the turn of progressive public opinion towards Marxism, on the
other, was marked by the combination of manifestly heterogeneous
elements under a common flag to fight the common enemy (the
obsolete social and political world outlook). We refer to the
heyday of “legal Marxism”. Speaking generally, this was an
altogether curious phenomenon that no one in the eighties or the
beginning of the nineties would have believed possible. In a
country ruled by an autocracy, with a completely enslaved press,
in a period of desperate political reaction in which even the
tiniest outgrowth of political discontent and protest is
persecuted, the theory of revolutionary Marxism suddenly forces
its way into the censored literature and, though
expounded in Aesopian language, is understood by all the
“interested”. The government had accustomed itself to regarding
only the theory of the (revolutionary) Narodnaya Volya as
dangerous, without, as is usual, observing its internal
evolution, and rejoicing at any criticism levelled against
it. Quite a considerable time elapsed (by our Russian standards)
before the government realised what had happened and the
unwieldy army of censors and gendarmes discovered the new enemy
and flung itself upon him. Meanwhile, Marxist books were
published one after another, Marxist journals and newspapers
were founded, nearly everyone became a Marxist, Marxists were
flattered, Marxists were courted, and the book publishers
rejoiced at the extraordinary, ready sale of Marxist literature.
It was quite natural, therefore, that among the Marxian
neophytes who were caught up in this atmosphere, there should be
more than one “author who got a swelled head...”[18]

We can now speak calmly of this period as of an event of the
past. It is no secret that the brief period in which Marxism
blossomed on the surface of our literature was called forth by
an alliance between people of extreme and of very moderate
views. In point of fact, the latter were bourgeois democrats;
this conclusion (so markedly confirmed by their
subsequent
“critical” development) suggested itself to some even when the
“alliance” was still intact.[5]

That being the case, are not the revolutionary Social-Democrats
who entered into the alliance with the future “Critics” mainly
responsible for the subsequent “confusion”? This question,
together with a reply in the affirmative, is sometimes heard
from people with too rigid a view. But such people are entirely
in the wrong. Only those who are not sure of themselves can fear
to enter into temporary alliances even with unreliable people;
not a single political party could exist without such
alliances. The combination with the legal Marxists was in its
way the first really political alliance entered into by Russian
Social -Democrats. Thanks to this alliance, an astonishingly
rapid victory was obtained over Narodism, and Marxist ideas
(even though in a vulgarised form) became very
widespread. Moreover, the alliance was not concluded altogether
without “conditions”. Evidence of this is the burning by the
censor, in 1895, of the Marxist collection Material on the
Question of the Economic Development of Russia.[19]
If the literary agreement with the legal Marxists can be compared with
a political alliance, then that book can be compared with a
political treaty.

The rupture, of course, did not occur because the “allies”
proved to be bourgeois democrats. On the contrary, the
representatives of the latter trend are natural and desirable
allies of Social-Democracy insofar as its democratic tasks,
brought to the fore by the prevailing situation in Russia, are
concerned. But an essential condition for such an alliance must
be the full opportunity for the socialists to reveal to the
working class that its interests are diametrically opposed to
the interests of the bourgeoisie. However, the Bernsteinian and
“critical” trend, to which the majority of the legal Marxists
turned, deprived the socialists of this opportunity and
demoralised the socialist consciousness by vulgarising Marxism,
by advocating the theory of the blunting of social
contradictions, by declaring the idea of the
social revolution
and of the dictatorship of the proletariat to be absurd, by
reducing the working-class movement and the class struggle to
narrow trade-unionism and to a “realistic” struggle for petty,
gradual reforms. This was synonymous with bourgeois democracy’s
denial of socialism’s right to independence and, consequently,
of its right to existence; in practice it meant a striving to
convert the nascent working-class movement into an appendage of
the liberals.

Naturally, under such circumstances the rupture was
necessary. But the “peculiar” feature of Russia manifested
itself in the fact that this rupture simply meant the
elimination of the Social-Democrats from the most accessible and
widespread “legal” literature. The “ex-Marxists”, who took up
the flag of “criticism” and who obtained almost a monopoly to
"demolish Marxism, entrenched themselves in this
literature. Catchwords like “Against orthodoxy” and “Long live
freedom of criticism” (now repeated by Rabocheye Dyelo)
forthwith became the vogue, and the fact that neither the censor
nor the gendarmes could resist this vogue is apparent from the
publication of three Russian editions of the work of
the celebrated Bernstein (celebrated in the Herostratean sense)
and from the fact that the works of Bernstein, Mr. Prokopovich,
and others were recommended by Zubatov (Iskra,
No. 10). A task now devolved upon the Social Democrats that was
difficult in itself and was made incredibly more difficult by
purely external obstacles – the task of combating the new
trend. This trend did not confine itself to the sphere of
literature. The turn towards “criticism” was accompanied by an
infatuation for Economism among Social-Democratic practical
workers.

The manner in which the connection between, and interdependence
of, legal criticism and illegal Economism arose and grew is in
itself an interesting subject, one that could serve as the theme
of a special article. We need only note here that this
connection undoubtedly existed. The notoriety deservedly
acquired by the Credo was due precisely to the
frankness with which it formulated this connection and blurted
out the fundamental political tendency of Economism – let the
workers carry on the economic struggle (it would be more correct
to say the trade unionist struggle,
because the latter also
embraces specifically working class politics) and let the
Marxist intelligentsia merge with the liberals for the political
“struggle.” Thus, trade-unionist work “among the people” meant
fulfilling the first part of this task, while legal criticism
meant fulfilling the second. This statement was such an
excellent weapon against Economism that, had there been no
Credo, it would have been worth inventing one.

The Credo was not invented, but it was published without the
consent and perhaps even against the will of its authors. At
all events, the present writer, who took part in dragging this
new “programme” into the light of day,[6]
has heard complaints
and reproaches to the effect that copies of the resume of the
speakers’ views were distributed, dubbed the Credo, and
even published in the press together with the protest! We refer
to this episode because it reveals a very peculiar feature of
our Economism – fear of publicity. This is a feature of
Economism generally, and not of the authors of the Credo
alone. It was revealed by that most outspoken and honest
advocate of Economism, Rabochaya Mysl, and by
Rabocheye Dyelo (which was indignant over the
publication of “Economist” documents in the
Vademecum[20]), as well
as by the Kiev Committee, which two years ago refused to permit
the publication of its profession de foi,[7]
together with a repudiation of it,[8]
and by many other individual
representatives of Economism.

This fear of criticism displayed by the advocates of freedom of
criticism cannot be attributed solely to craftiness (although,
on occasion, no doubt craftiness is brought into play: it would
be improvident to expose the young and as
yet frail shoots of
the new trend. to attacks by opponents). No, the majority of the
Economists look with sincere resentment (as by the very nature
of Economism they must) upon all theoretical controversies,
factional disagreements, broad political questions, plans for
organising revolutionaries, etc. “Leave all that to the people
abroad!” said a fairly consistent Economist to me one day,
thereby expressing a very widespread (and again purely
trade-unionist) view; our concern is the working-class movement,
the workers, organisations here, in our localities; all the rest
is merely the invention of doctrinaires, “the overrating of
ideology”, as the authors of the letter, published in
Iskra, No. 12, expressed it, in unison with
Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10.

The question now arises: such being the peculiar features of
Russian “criticism” and Russian Bernsteinism, what should have
been the task of those who sought to oppose opportunism in deeds
and not merely in words? First, they should have made efforts to
resume the theoretical work that had barely begun in the period
of legal Marxism and that fell anew on the shoulders of the
comrades working underground. Without such work the successful
growth of the movement was impossible. Secondly, they should
have actively combated the legal “criticism” that was perverting
people’s minds on a considerable scale. Thirdly, they should
have actively opposed confusion and vacillation in the practical
movement, exposing and repudiating every conscious or
unconscious attempt to degrade our programme and our tactics.

That Rabocheye Dyelo did none of these things is well
known; we shall have occasion below to deal with this well-known
fact in detail and from various aspects. At the moment, however,
we desire merely to show the glaring contradiction that exists
between the demand for “freedom of criticism” and the specific
features of our native criticism and Russian Economism. It
suffices but to glance at the text of the resolution in which
the Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad endorsed the point
of view of Rabocheye Dyelo.

“In the interests of the further ideological development of
Social-Democracy, we recognise the freedom of criticism of
Social-Democratic theory in Party literature to be absolutely
necessary insofar as the criticism does not run counter to the
class and revolutionary character of this theory” (Two
Conferences, p. 10).

And the motivation? The resolution “in its first part coincides
with the resolution of the Lubeck Party Congress on
Bernstein”. . . . In the simplicity of their souls the
“Unionists” failed to observe what a testimonium
paupertatis (attestation of poverty) they betray with this
copying. . .. “But ... in its second part, it restricts freedom
of criticism much more than did the Lubeck Party Congress.”

The resolution of the Union Abroad, then, is directed against
the Russian Bernsteinians? If it is not, then the reference to
Lubeck would be utterly absurd. But it is not true to say that
it “restricts freedom of criticism”. In adopting their Hanover
resolution, the Germans, point by point, rejected precisely
the amendments proposed by Bernstein, while in their Lubeck
resolution they cautioned Bernstein personally, by
naming him. Our “free” imitators, however, make not a single
allusion to a single manifestation of specifically
Russian “criticism” and Russian Economism. In view of this
omission, the bare reference to the class and revolutionary
character of the theory leaves far wider scope for
misinterpretation, particularly when the Union Abroad refuses to
identify “so-called Economism” with opportunism (Two
Conferences, p. 8, Paragraph 1). But all this, in
passing. The main thing to note is that the positions of the
opportunists in relation to the revolutionary Social-Democrats
in Russia are diametrically opposed to those in Germany. In that
country, as we know, the revolutionary Social-Democrats are in
favour of preserving that which exists – the old programme and
the tactics, which are universally known and have been
elucidated in all their details by many decades of
experience. But the “Critics” desire to introduce changes, and
since these Critics represent an insignificant minority, and
since they are very timid in their revisionist efforts, one can
understand the motives of the majority in confining themselves
to the dry rejection of “innovations”. In Russia, however, it is
the Critics and the Economists who are in favour of preserving
that which exists: the “Critics” want us to go on regarding them
as Marxists and to guarantee them the “freedom of criticism”
they enjoyed to the full (for, in fact, they never recognised
any kind of party ties,[9][9]
The fact alone of the absence of public party ties and party
traditions, representing as it does a cardinal difference
between Russia
and Germany, should have warned all sensible
socialists against blind imitation. But here is an instance of
the lengths to which “freedom of criticism” goes in
Russia. Mr. Bulgakov, the Russian Critic, utters the following
reprimand to the Austrian Critic, Hertz: “Notwithstanding the
independence of his conclusions, Hertz on this point on the
question of co-operative societies) apparently remains
excessively bound by the opinions of his party, and although he
disagrees with it in details, he dare not reject the common
principle” (Capitalism and Agriculture, Vol. II,
p. 287). The subject of a politically enslaved state, in which
nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand of the population
are corrupted to the marrow by political subservience and
completely lack the conception of party honour and party ties,
superciliously reproves a citizen of a constitutional state for
being excessively “bound by the opinions of his party”! Our
illegal organisations have nothing else to do, of course, but
draw up resolutions on freedom of criticism....
—Lenin
and, moreover,
we never had a
generally recognised party body that could “restrict” freedom of
criticism, if only by counsel); the Economists want the
revolutionaries to recognise the sovereign character of the
present movement" (Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 25),
i.e., to recognise the “legitimacy” of that which exists; they
want the “ideologists” not to try to “divert” the movement from
the path that “is determined by the interaction of
material. elements and material environment” (“Letter” in
Iskra, No. 12); they want to have that struggle
recognised as desirable “which it is possible for the workers to
wage under the present conditions”, and as the only possible
struggle, that “which they are actually waging at the present
time” (“Separate Supplement” to Rabochaya
Mysl, p. 14). We revolutionary Social-Democrats, on the
contrary, are dissatisfied with this worship of spontaneity,
i.e., of that which exists “at the present moment”. We demand
that the tactics that have prevailed in recent years he changed;
we declare that “before we can unite, and in order that we may
unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of
demarcation” (see announcement of the publication of
Iskra).[10]
In a word, the Germans stand for that
which exists and reject changes; we demand a change of that
which exists, and reject subservience thereto and reconciliation
to it.

This “slight” difference our “free” copyists of German
resolutions failed to notice.

D. Engels On the Importance of the
Theoretical Struggle

“Dogmatism, doctrinairism”, “ossification of the party – the
inevitable retribution that follows the violent strait-lacing of
thought” – these are the enemies against which the knightly
champions of “freedom of criticism” in Rabocheye Dyelo
rise up in arms. We are very glad that this question has been
placed on the order of the day and we would only propose to add
to it one other:

And who are the judges?

We have before us two publishers’ announcements. One, “The
Programme of the Periodical Organ of the Union of Russian Social
Democrats Abroad – Rabocheye Dyelo” (reprint from
No. 1 of Rabocheye Dyelo), and the other, the
“Announcement of the Resumption of the Publications of the
Emancipation of Labour Group”. Both are dated 1899, when the
“crisis of Marxism” had long been under discussion. And what do
we find? We would seek in vain in the first announcement for any
reference to this phenomenon, or a definite statement of the
position the new organ intends to adopt on this question. Not a
word is said about theoretical work and the urgent tasks that
now confront it, either in this programme or in the supplements
to it that were adopted by the Third Congress of the Union
Abroad in 1901 (Two Conferences, pp. 15-18). During
this entire time the Editorial Board of Rabocheye Dyelo
ignored theoretical questions, in spite of the fact that these
were questions that disturbed the minds of all Social-Democrats
the world over.

The other announcement, on the contrary, points first of all to
the declining interest in theory in recent years, imperatively
demands “vigilant attention to the theoretical aspect of the
revolutionary movement of the proletariat”, and calls for
“ruthless criticism of the Bernsteinian and other
anti-revolutionary tendencies” in our movement. The issues of
Zarya to date show how this programme has been carried
out.

Thus, we see that high-sounding phrases against the ossification
of thought, etc., conceal unconcern and helplessness with regard
to the development of theoretical thought. The case of the
Russian Social-Democrats manifestly illustrates
the general
European phenomenon (long ago noted also by the German Marxists)
that the much vaunted freedom of criticism does not imply
substitution of one theory for another, but freedom from all
integral and pondered theory; it implies eclecticism and lack of
principle. Those who have the slightest acquaintance with the
actual state of our movement cannot but see that the wide spread
of Marxism was accompanied by a certain lowering of the
theoretical level. Quite a number of people with very little,
and even a total lack of theoretical training joined the
movement because of its practical significance and its practical
successes. We can judge from that how tactless Rabocheye
Dyelo is when, with an air of triumph, it quotes Marx’s
statement: “Every step of real movement is more important than a
dozen programmes.”[21] To repeat these words in a period of
theoretical disorder is like wishing mourners at a funeral many
happy returns of the day. Moreover, these words of Marx are
taken from his letter on the Gotha
Programme,[22] in which he
sharply condemns eclecticism in the formulation of
principles. If you must unite, Marx wrote to the party leaders,
then enter into agreements to satisfy the practical aims of the
movement, but do not allow any bargaining over principles, do
not make theoretical “concessions”. This was Marx’s idea, and
yet there are people among us who seek-in his name to belittle
the significance of theory!

Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary
movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a
time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in
hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical
activity. Yet, for Russian Social-Democrats the importance of
theory is enhanced by three other circumstances, which are often
forgotten: first, by the fact that our Party is only in process
of formation, its features are only just becoming defined, and
it has as yet far from settled accounts with the other trends of
revolutionary thought that threaten to divert the movement from
the correct path. On the contrary, precisely the very recent
past was marked by a revival of non-Social-Democratic
revolutionary trends (an eventuation regarding which Axelrod
long ago warned the Economists). Under these circumstances, what
at first sight appears to be an “unimportant” error may lead to
most deplorable consequences, and only short-sighted people can
consider factional disputes and a strict differentiation between
shades of opinion inopportune or superfluous. The fate of
Russian Social-Democracy for very many years to come may depend
on the strengthening of one or the other “shade”.

Secondly, the Social-Democratic movement is in its very essence
an international movement. This means, not only that we must
combat national chauvinism, but that an incipient movement in a
young country can be successful only if it makes use of the
experiences of other countries. In order to make use of these
experiences it is not enough merely to be acquainted with them,
or simply to copy out the latest resolutions. What is required
is the ability to treat these experiences critically and to test
them independently. He who realises how enormously the modern
working-class movement has grown and branched out will
understand what a reserve of theoretical forces and political
(as well as revolutionary) experience is required to carry out
this task.

Thirdly, the national tasks of Russian Social-Democracy are such
as have never confronted any other socialist party in the
world. We shall have occasion further on to deal with the
political and organisational duties which the task of
emancipating the whole people from the yoke of autocracy imposes
upon us. At this point, we wish to state only that the role
of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is
guided by the most advanced theory. To have a concrete
understanding of what this means, let the reader recall such
predecessors of Russian Social Democracy as Herzen, Belinsky,
Chernyshevsky, and the brilliant galaxy of revolutionaries of
the seventies; let him ponder over the world significance which
Russian literature is now acquiring; let him. . . but be that
enough!

Let us quote what Engels said in 1874 concerning the
significance of theory in the Social-Democratic movement. Engels
recognizes, not two forms of the great struggle of
Social Democracy (political and economic), as is the fashion
among us, but three, placing the theoretical struggle on a
par with the first two. His recommendations to the German
working-class movement, which had become strong, practically and
politically, are so instructive from the standpoint
of present-day problems and controversies, that we hope the reader
will not be vexed with us for quoting a long passage from his
prefatory note to Der deutsche Bauernkrieg,[11]
which has long become a great bibliographical rarity:

“The German workers have two important advantages over those of
the rest of Europe. First, they belong to the most theoretical
people of Europe; and they have retained that sense of theory
which the so-called ’educated’ classes of Germany have almost
completely lost. Without German philosophy, which preceded it,
particularly that of Hegel, German scientific socialism – the
only scientific socialism that has ever existed – would never
have come into being. Without a sense of theory among the
workers, this scientific socialism would never have entered
their flesh and blood as much as is the case. What an
immeasurable advantage this is may be seen, on the one hand,
from the indifference towards all theory, which is one of the
main reasons why the English working-class movement crawls along
so slowly in spite of the splendid organisation of the
individual unions; on the other hand, from the mischief and
confusion wrought by Proudhonism, in its original form, among
the French and Belgians, and, in the form further caricatured by
Bakunin, among the Spaniards and Italians.

“The second advantage is that, chronologically speaking, the
Germans were about the last to come into the workers’
movement. Just as German theoretical socialism will never forget
that it rests on the shoulders of Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen
– three men who, in spite of all their fantastic notions and
all their utopianism, have their place among the most eminent
thinkers of all times, and whose genius anticipated innumerable
things, the correctness of which is now being scientifically
proved by us – so the practical workers’ movement in Germany
ought never to forget that it has developed on the shoulders of
the English and French movements, that it was able simply to
utilise their dearly bought experience, and could now avoid
their mistakes, which in their time were mostly
unavoidable. Without the precedent of the English trade unions
and French workers’
political struggles, without the gigantic
impulse given especially by the Paris Commune, where would we be
now?

“It must be said to the credit of the German workers that they
have exploited the advantages of their situation with rare
understanding. For the first time since a workers’ movement has
existed, the struggle is being conducted pursuant to its three
sides – the. theoretical, the political, and the
practical-economic (resistance to the capitalists) – in harmony
and in its interconnections, and in a systematic way. It is
precisely in this, as it were, concentric attack, that the
strength and invincibility of the German movement lies.

“Due to this advantageous situation, on the one hand, and to the
insular peculiarities of the English and the forcible
suppression of the French movement, on the other, the German
workers have for the moment been placed in the vanguard of the
proletarian struggle. How long events will allow them to occupy
this post of honour cannot be foretold. But let us hope that as
long as they occupy it, they will fill it fittingly. This
demands redoubled efforts in every field of struggle and
agitation. In particular, it will be the duty of the leaders to
gain an ever clearer insight into all theoretical questions, to
free themselves more and more from the influence of traditional
phrases inherited from the old world outlook, and constantly to
keep in mind that socialism, since it has become a science,
demands that it be pursued as a science, i.e., that it be
studied. The task will be to spread with increased zeal among
the masses of the workers the ever more clarified understanding
thus acquired, to knit together ever more firmly the
organisation both of the party and of the trade unions....

“If the German workers progress in this way, they will not. be
marching exactly at the head of the movement – it is not at all
in the interest of this movement that the workers of any
particular country should march at its head – but they will
occupy an honourable place in the battle line; and they will
stand armed for battle when either unexpectedly grave trials or
momentous events demand of them increased courage, increased
determination and energy.”[23]

Engels’s words proved prophetic. Within a few years the German
workers were subjected to unexpectedly grave trials in the form
of the Exceptional Law Against the Socialists.
And they met those trials armed for battle and succeeded in emerging from
them victorious.

The Russian proletariat will have to undergo trials immeasurably
graver; it will have to fight a monster compared with which an
antisocialist law in a constitutional country seems but a
dwarf. History has now confronted us with an immediate task
which is the most revolutionary of all the
immediate tasks confronting the proletariat of any
country. The fulfilment of this task, the destruction of the
most powerful bulwark, not only of European, but (it may now be
said) of Asiatic reaction, would make the Russian proletariat
the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat. And
we have the right to count upon acquiring this honourable title,
already earned by our predecessors, the revolutionaries of the
seventies, if we succeed in inspiring our movement, which is a
thousand times broader and deeper, with the same devoted
determination and vigour.

Notes

[2]
A comparison of the two trends within the revolutionary
proletariat (the revolutionary and the opportunist), and the two
trends within the revolutionary bourgeoisie in the eighteenth
century (the Jacobin, known as the Mountain, and the Girondist)
was made in the leading article in No. 2 of Iskra
(February 1901). The article was written by Plekhanov. The
Cadets,[26] the
Bezzaglavtsi,[27] and the Mensheviks to this day love to
refer to Jacobinism in Russian Social-Democracy. But how
Plekhanov came to apply this concept for the first time against
the Right wing of Social-Democracy – about this they prefer to
keep silent or to forget. (Author’s note to the 1907 edition –
Ed.) —Lenin

[3]
At the
time Engels dealt his blows at Duhring, many representatives of
German Social-Democracy inclined towards the latter’s
views, and
accusations of acerbity, intolerance, uncomradely polemics,
etc., were hurled at Engels even publicly at a Party
Congress. At the Congress of 1877, Most, and his supporters,
introduced a resolution to prohibit the publication of Engels’s
articles in Vorwarts because “they do not interest the
overwhelming majority of the readers”, and VahIteich declared
that their publication had caused great damage to the Party,
that Duhring too had rendered services to Social-Democracy: “We
must utilise everyone in the interests of the Party; let the
professors engage in polemics if they care to do so, but
Vorwarts is not the place in which to conduct them”
(Vorwarts, No. 65, June 6, 1877). Here we have another
example of the defence of “freedom of criticism”, and our legal
critics and illegal opportunists, who love so much to cite the
example of the Germans, would do well to ponder it!
—Lenin

[4]
It should be observed that Rabocheye Dyelo has always
confined itself to a bare statement of facts concerning
Bernsteinism in the German party and completely “refrained” from
expressing its own opinion. See, for instance, the reports of
the Stuttgart
Congress[28] in No. 2-3 (p. 66), in which all the
disagreements are reduced to “tactics” and the statement is
merely made that the overwhelming majority remain true to the
previous revolutionary tactics. Or, No. 4-5 (p. 25, et seq.), in
which we have nothing but a paraphrasing of the speeches
delivered at the Hanover Congress, with a reprint of Bebel’s
resolution. An exposition and a criticism of Bernstein’s views
are again put olf (as was the case in No. 2-8) to be dealt with
in a “special article”. Curiously enough, in No. 4-5 (p. 33), we
read the following: “...the views expounded by Bebel have the
support of the vast majority of the Congress,” and a few lines
thereafter: “ ..David defended Bernstein’s views.... First of
all, he tried to show that ... Bernstein and his friends, after
all is said and done (sic!), stand on the basis of the class
struggle...” This was written in December 1899, and in September
1901 Rabocheye Dyelo, apparently no longer believing
that Bebel was right, repeats David’s views as its own!
—Lenin

[5]
The reference is to an article by K. Tulin directed against
Struve. (See Collected Works, Vol. 1, pp. 333-507. –
Ed.) The article was based on an essay entitled “The
Reflection of Marxism in Bourgeois Literature”. (Author’s note
to the 1907 edition – Ed.)
—Lenin

[6]
The reference is to the Protest of the Seventeen against the
Credo. The present writer took part in drawing up this protest (the end of
1899).[29] The Protest and the Credo were published abroad
in the spring of 1900. (See “A Protest of Russian
Social-Democrats”, Collected Works, Vol. 4, pp. 167-82
–Ed.) It is now known from the article written by
Madame Kuskova (I think in
Byloye[30]) that she was the
author of the Credo and that Mr. Prokopovich was very
prominent among the Economists abroad at the time. (Author’s
note to the 1907 edition – Ed.)
—Lenin

[24]Lassalleans and Eisenachers—two parties in the German
working-class movement in the sixties and early seventies of the nineteenth
century.

Lassalleans—supporters of Ferdinand Lassalle (1825–1864)
and adherents of his theories; Lassalle was a German petty-bourgeois
socialist who played an active part in organising (in 1863) the General
Association of German Workers, a political organisation that existed up to
1875. The programmatic demands of the Association were formulated by
Lassalle in a number of articles and speeches. Lassalle regarded the state
as a supra-class organisation and, in conformity with that philosophically
idealist view, believed that the Prussian state could be utilised to solve
the social problem through the setting up of producers’ co-operatives with
its aid. Marx said that Lassalle advocated a “Royal-Prussian state
socialism”. Lassalle directed the workers towards peaceful, parliamentary
forms of struggle, believing that the introduction of universal suffrage
would make Prussia a “free people’s state”. To obtain universal suffrage
he promised Bismarck the support of his Association against the liberal
opposition and also in the implementation of Bismarck’s plan to reunite
Germany “from above” under the hegemony of Prussia. Lassalle repudiated
the revolutionary class struggle, denied the importance of trade unions and
of strike action, ignored the international tasks of the working class, and
infected the German workers with nationalist ideas. His contemptuous
attitude towards the peasantry, which he regarded as a reactionary force,
did much damage to the German working-class movement. Marx and Engels
fought his harmful utopian dogmatism and his reformist views. Their
criticism helped free the German workers from the influence of Lassallean
opportunism.

Eisenachers—members of the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party
of Germany, founded in 1869 at the Eisenach Congress. The leaders of the
Eisenachers were August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht, who were under the
ideological influence of Marx and Engels. The Eisenach programme stated
that the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany considered itself “a
section of the International Working Men’s Association and shared its
aspirations”. Thanks to the regular advice and criticism of Marx and
Engels, the Eisenachers pursued a more consistent revolutionary policy than
did Lassalle’s General Association of German Workers; in particular, on the
question of German reunification, they followed “the democratic and
proletarian road, struggling against the slightest concession to
Prussianism, Bismarckism, and nationalism” (see present edition, Vol. 19,
“August Bebel”). Under the influence of the growing working-class
movement and of increased government repressions, the two parties united at
the Gotha Congress in 1875 to form the Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany,
of which the Lassalleans formed the opportunist wing.

[25]Guesdists and Possibilists—two trends in the French
socialist movement arising out of the split in the French Workers’ Party in
1882.

Guesdists—followers of Jules Guesde, constituted the Marxist
wing of the movement and advocated an independent revolutionary policy of
the proletariat. In 1901 they formed the Socialist Party of France.

Possibilists—a petty-bourgeois, reformist trend that sought
to divert the proletariat from revolutionary methods of struggle. The
Possibilists advocated the restriction of working-class activity to what is
“possible” under capitalism. In 1902, in conjunction with other reformist
groups, the Possibilists organised the French Socialist Party.

In 1905 the Socialist Party of France and the French Socialist Party
united to form a single party. During the imperialist war of 1944–18,
Jules Guesde, together with the entire leadership of the French Socialist
Party, went over to the camp of social-chauvinism.

[26]Cadets—the Constitutional-Democratic Party, the principal
bourgeois party in Russia, representing the liberal-monarchist
bourgeoisie. It was formed in October 1905. Parading as democrats and
calling themselves the party of “people’s freedom”, the Cadets tried to
win the following of the peasantry. Their aim was to preserve tsarism in
the form of a constitutional monarchy. After the victory of the October
Socialist Revolution, the Cadets organised counter-revolutionary
conspiracies and revolts against the Soviet Republic.

[27]Bezzaglavtsi—from the title of the journal Bes
Zaglaviya (Without a Title)—were organisers of, and
contributors to, the journal published in St. Petersburg in 1906 by
S. N. Prokopovich, Y. D. Kuskova, V. Y. Bogucharsky, and others. The
journal openly advocated revisionism, supported the Mensheviks and
liberals, and opposed an independent proletarian policy. Lenin called the
group “pro-Menshevik Cadets or pro-Cadet Mensheviks”.

[13]Ilovaisky, D. I. (1832–1920)—historian; author of numerous
official textbooks of history that were extensively used in primary and
secondary schools in pre-revolutionary Russia. In Ilovaisky’s texts history
was reduced mainly to acts of kings and generals; the historical process
was explained through secondary and fortuitous circumstances.

[14]Katheder-Socialism—a trend in bourgeois political economy
that emerged in Germany in the seventies and eighties of the nineteenth
century. Under the guise of socialism the Katheder-Socialists preached
bourgeois-liberal reformism from university chairs (Katheder).
They maintained that the bourgeois state was above classes, that it was
capable of reconciling hostile classes and gradually introducing
“socialism”, without affecting the interests of the capitalists, while,
at the same time, taking the demands of the workers as far as possible into
consideration. In Russia the
views of the Katheder-Socialists were disseminated by the “legal
Marxists”.

[15]Nozdryov—a character In Gogol’s Dead Souls whom the
author called “an historical personage” for the reason that wherever he
went he left behind him a scandalous “history”.

[16]The Hanover resolution—resolution on “Attacks on the
Fundamental Views and Tactics of the Party”, adopted by the German
Social-Democratic Party Congress at Hanover, September 27–October 2
(October 9–14), 1899. A discussion of this question at the Congress and
the adoption of a special resolution were necessitated by the fact that the
opportunists, led by Bernstein, launched a revisionist attack on Marxist
theory and demanded a reconsideration of Social-Democratic revolutionary
policy and tactics. The resolution adopted by the Congress rejected the
demands of the revisionists, but failed to criticise and expose
Bernsteinism. Bernstein’s supporters also voted for the resolution.

[28]The Stuttgart Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party
held on September 21–26 (October 3–8), 1898, was the first congress to
discuss the question of revisionism in the German Social-Democratic
Party. A statement from Bernstein (who did not attend) was read to the
Congress; it amplified and defended the opportunist views he had previously
set forth in a number of articles. There was, however, no unity among his
opponents at the Congress. Some (Bebel, Kautsky, and others) called for an
ideological struggle and a criticism of Bernstein’s errors, but opposed the
adoption of organisational measures toward him. The others, led by Rosa
Luxemburg—the minority—urged a more vigorous struggle against
Bernsteinism.

[17]Starover (Old Believer)—the pseudonym of A. N. Potresov, a
member of the Iskra Editorial Board; he subsequently became a
Menshevik.

[18]
“The Author Who Got a Swelled Head”—the title of one of
Maxim Gorky’s early stories.

[19]
The reference is to the collection Material for a Characterisation
of Our Economic Development, printed legally in an edition of 2,000
copies in April 1895. The collection included Lenin’s article (signed
K. Tulin) “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of
It in Mr. Struve’s Book (The Reflection of Marxism in Bourgeois
Literature)”, directed against the “legal Marxists” (see present
edition, Vol. 1, pp. 333–507).

[29]
“A Protest by Russian Social-Democrats” was written by Lenin
in 1899, in exile. It was a reply to the Credo of a group of
“Economists”
(S. N. Prokopovich, Y. D. Kuskova, and others, who subsequently became
Cadets). On receiving a copy of the Credo from his sister,
A. I. Yelizarova, Lenin wrote a sharp protest in which be exposed the real
nature of the declaration.

The Protest was discussed and unanimously endorsed by a meeting of 17
exiled Marxists convened by Lenin in the village of Yermakovskoye,
Minusinsk District (Siberia). Exiles in Turukhansk District (Siberia) and
Orlovo (Vyatka Gubernia) subsequently associated themselves with the
Protest.

Lenin forwarded a copy of the Protest abroad to the Emancipation of
Labour group; Plekhanov published it in his Vademecum
(Handbook—Ed.) for the Editors of Rabocheye
Dyelo.

[30]Byloye (The Past)—a monthly journal on historical
problems published in St. Petersburg in 1906–07; in 1908 it changed its
name to Minuvshiye Cody (Years Past). It was banned by
the tsarist government in 1908, but resumed publication in Petrograd in
July 1917 and continued in existence until 1926.

[20]Vademecum for the Editors of Rabocheye Dyelo—a collection of
articles and documents compiled and prefaced by G. V. Plekhanov and
published by the Emancipation of Labour group in Geneva in 1900; it exposed
the opportunist views of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad and
of the Editorial Board of its periodical, Rabocheye Dyelo.

[31]Profession de foi—a manifesto setting forth the opportunist
views of the Kiev Committee, issued at the end of 1899. It was identical
with the “Economist” Credo on many points. Lenin criticised the
document in his article “Apropos of the Profession de foi” (see
present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 286–96).

[22]The Gotha Programme—the programme adopted by the German
Social-Democratic Party at the Gotha Congress in 1875 when the Eisenachers
and Lassalleans united. The programme suffered from eclecticism and
opportunism, since the Eisenachers made concessions to the Lassalleans on
the most important points and accepted their formulations. Marx and Engels
subjected the Gotha Programme to scathing criticism and characterised it as
a retrograde step as compared with the Eisenach Programme of 1869 (See Karl
Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx and Engels,
Selected Works, Vol. II, Moscow, 1958, pp. 13–48).